Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2016-08-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-08-30
Requested 2016-08-16
Authors Bill Fenner (ˢˣˠ)
Draft last updated 2016-08-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2016-08-24
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 02)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-08-24
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2016-08-24-00
Hi,



I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-

obsolete-01
 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all
IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
 with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last
call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.



This document contains versions of several
obsoleted MIB modules (IPV6-MIB, IPV6-TC, IPV6-ICMP-MIB, IPV6-TCP-MIB
and IPV6-UDP-MIB) for the purpose of updating the MIB module repositories.



An RFC 5706 review does not apply, as this is not a new protocol or extension
of an existing protocol.



There is no operational or manageability issue with
 this document. At best it can clarify the status of MIB modules in the
repositories which is a good thing.



I have however the feeling that it’s kind of an
overkill to republish MIB modules just to change their status clause. Do
 we really need to copy all the original MIB modules? Will we do this in
 the future with all MIB modules that have been
 and will be obsolete? Same about the YANG modules?



Also the statement in the motivation section that
‘the original RFCs (as is normal IETF policy) never changed from being
Proposed Standard’ is not true for RFC 2454 which is marked in the RFC
Editor pages as ‘

Historic
 (changed from Proposed Standard



June 2005

)’



I suggest to consider simplifying the document by dropping the current sections
2-6.If this issue was already debated and there was a strong demand from
operators to republish the full MIB modules texts in a new RFC, I would be glad
to look at some references.



Regards,

Dan